daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 28th, 2014, 12:32 AM   #5101
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,593
Likes (Received): 28160

In the top left I see some structure that looks like a piece of foundation, but I'm not sure.
It won't be long before this is U/C for real.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 28th, 2014, 06:37 AM   #5102
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

Speaking of FAR, that 's a good read on the 57th street boom.

Quote:
Why 57th Street Is the Supertall Tower Mecca of New York


http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...f_new_york.php
It's clear that 57th Street is where it's at for really tall and skinny new buildings that are reshaping the Manhattan skyline. One57 and 432 Park Avenue are the most visible examples so far, SHoP's 111 West 57thand Extell's Nordstrom tower will follow, and they are all within four blocks. Part of the trend along this specific corridor has to do with floor area ratio (FAR), the formula that equates to maximum developable floor space allowed at a property. FAR can be stretched really tall with a few tricks and trades, and it underlines the debate over how liberal or restrictive the city should be with height limits and the air rights market. Just how easy it was for developers to stretch FAR on 57th Street is made clear in a 2010 report by architecture students at Columbia University's graduate school.
Before we dive into the study, a brief explainer on FAR, from the report:
FAR is the ratio of the building's floor area to the area of its zoning lot. Each zoning district is given a maximum allowable FAR that when multiplied by the lot area produces the maximum amount of floor area allowed. For example, on a 10,000-square-foot zoning lot with a maximum FAR of 1.0, the maximum square footage of the entire building can only be 10,000 square feet. This 10,000 square feet can be molded different ways - one could use the whole zoning lot and construct a 1 story building, use half the site and construct a 2 story building, or use a quarter of the site and construct a 4 story building, all of which would add up to the maximum 10,000 square feet, dictated by the lot size and FAR.



The report also shows that compared to other streets in the study area, the percentage of actual used FAR on 57th Street was very low. Many of the lots in the whole study area also have low percentages of used FAR with some exceptions, such as most of 53rd Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues.



The report, conducted by students in a 2010 architecture class at Columbia University, profiles Midtown North from 53rd Street to 59th Street between Broadway and Fifth Avenue, leaving 432 Park just outside of the study area. The students, setting out to make recommendations for preservation, considered as a variable the unused floor space allowed for each lot. In a set of graphics, 57th Street comes out looking like a FAR mecca. One graphic shows that the streets in the study area had different combinations of 8, 10, 12, and 15 FAR, but 57th Street was the only street with all 15 FAR and in stark contrast to 58th and 59th Streets that have mostly only 10 FAR.
Another graphic shows two examples of how the FAR could be used pre-One57 (in 2010, One57 was just starting to be built). The first example shows how the FAR could be built as-of-right, while the second shows how the FAR could be stretched vertically with skinny buildings. In the second example, a building that looks like it could be the Nordstrom Tower, stands at about 900 feet. The Nordstrom tower itself will be 1,490 feet at its roof and 1,775 at spire height.



Since 57th Street has the highest amount of FAR and the least used FAR, it's the ideal location for developers to combine tax lots to allow for sites with zoning that allows bigger buildings. And when air rightsare thrown into the mix, buildings can grow even larger. The area has a number of landmarks and lower-rise buildings that have unused air rights that can be sold and transferred to neighboring lots (example: Extell buying up rights from the Art Students League for the Nordstrom Tower). Katherine Malishewsky, a restoration architect at Kamen Tall Architects and one of the former students who compiled the report, says that landmarking in the area plays an interesting role. The selling of unused air rights allows for larger buildings nearby, but it also keeps landmarks as they are since they rid themselves of their additional FAR. "Even though nobody likes really tall buildings blocking their views, all the buildings next to it are going to stay low," she said. "It's a developer's tool, but it could be a tool for preservation as well."



The students recommended 35 buildings to be landmarked, including the Solow Building on 57th Street, MoMA at 11 and 9 West 53rd Street, and Tiffany's & Co on Fifth Avenue. They also recommended that West 57th Street and Fifth Avenue be designated a historic district.
Malishewski said she isn't surprised to see that the study area is now being developed with super-scrapers. "It wasn't a shock. That's what that area is known for. Historically, in the 1800s, they hired the most innovative architects." She said that though now the buildings are very skinny, "it's in the same spirit as it always has been."
The students, led by advisor Kate Wood, were Ashley Albahary, Katherine Malishewsky, Sarah Modiano, Lauren Racusin, Sarah Sher, and Amy Swift.
__________________

Yorkshire Boy, Swiddle, birchey liked this post
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2014, 07:31 AM   #5103
Dubai Skyscraper
Moderator
 
Dubai Skyscraper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Speyer, Germany
Posts: 11,972
Likes (Received): 2609

If there's one thing that always bothered me about NYC then it's this endless mess of height limitations, air rights and restrictions. Once all rights are expanded to their maximum, how is the city suppposed to grow and develop any further?
__________________
View thousands of 2D and 3D designs in our creative corner
Dubai Skyscraper no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2014, 11:59 AM   #5104
City-of-Platinum
BANNED
 
City-of-Platinum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 298
Likes (Received): 141

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubai Skyscraper View Post
If there's one thing that always bothered me about NYC then it's this endless mess of height limitations, air rights and restrictions. Once all rights are expanded to their maximum, how is the city suppposed to grow and develop any further?
Lol. There is so much FAR left that those issues are a moot point for decades. I don't see a need to worry now. Remember, the outer bourougs too where there is a lot of unused spaces. Nyc will always find a way to develop more capacity if it needs to. It just takes will and politics is run by business here. Rezonings, changes of policy., anything would be possible if NYC is to be one day in danger of stagnating or is turning away demand. Development is a huge part of the economy in nyc. I think the city will cross the bridge when it needs to. Perhaps it will need massive changes to the system to accommodate demand in the future, or perhaps it won't. Let's wait and see, it's a long way off.

The air rights are there for quality of life issues, same with the far. Given the density of the city, it could be unbearable if there's no restrictions on development. NYC is a place where there is a delicate balance to uphold between capacity and livability.
__________________

Last edited by City-of-Platinum; September 28th, 2014 at 12:09 PM.
City-of-Platinum no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2014, 03:43 AM   #5105
LastConformist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 195
Likes (Received): 119

Quote:
Originally Posted by City-of-Platinum View Post
Lol. There is so much FAR left that those issues are a moot point for decades. I don't see a need to worry now. Remember, the outer bourougs too where there is a lot of unused spaces. Nyc will always find a way to develop more capacity if it needs to. It just takes will and politics is run by business here. Rezonings, changes of policy., anything would be possible if NYC is to be one day in danger of stagnating or is turning away demand. Development is a huge part of the economy in nyc. I think the city will cross the bridge when it needs to. Perhaps it will need massive changes to the system to accommodate demand in the future, or perhaps it won't. Let's wait and see, it's a long way off.

The air rights are there for quality of life issues, same with the far. Given the density of the city, it could be unbearable if there's no restrictions on development. NYC is a place where there is a delicate balance to uphold between capacity and livability.
FAR is a major issue in a lot of places, actually, though not so much in Midtown. In particular, many outer-borough neighborhoods have been downzoned so far that existing buildings are all nonconforming. For example, you couldn't build an ordinary four-story brownstone (matching the height of surrounding buildings) on a vacant lot in Park Slope--you'd be limited by FAR restrictions to about two stories, maybe three if you didn't take up the entire lot. That's just idiocy, frankly.
LastConformist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2014, 04:39 AM   #5106
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4604

I think most people would agree would that. The outer boroughs and some parts of manhattan would benefit from an increase in FAR even more so now considering the shortage of affordable housing. I would argue that midtown and downtown could also benefit from it to allow for future growth.

That however doesn't mean however that the FAR system should be discarded. It has had a positive impact in the city's overall street scape and that did not discourage development much so far, just look at all the activity going on in the city. In fact buildings have constantly been getting taller, and who knows without FAR we might not be seeing the thin and tall tower phenomenon on 57th street that I and many others are huge fans of.

Bottom line is it needs some alteration for the future but not much more in my opinion.

Last edited by Ghostface79; September 29th, 2014 at 05:06 AM.
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2014, 04:55 AM   #5107
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

At least NYC doesn't have view corridors (although they came damn close to that when 15 Penn Plaza heated up). Nor does it have the bizarro air corridor height limits of Miami and Boston, the crazy Proposition M caps on square footage in San Francisco, or the freakishly bizarre height limit jigsaw pattern imposed in Seattle...
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2014, 06:03 AM   #5108
WI_1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
At least NYC doesn't have view corridors (although they came damn close to that when 15 Penn Plaza heated up). Nor does it have the bizarro air corridor height limits of Miami and Boston, the crazy Proposition M caps on square footage in San Francisco, or the freakishly bizarre height limit jigsaw pattern imposed in Seattle...
NYC has all those things.

It doesn't have all those things on every block, but pretty much any site in a landmark district or special district (about 1/3 of Manhattan) has such issues.
WI_1982 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2014, 06:48 PM   #5109
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
At least NYC doesn't have view corridors (although they came damn close to that when 15 Penn Plaza heated up). Nor does it have the bizarro air corridor height limits of Miami and Boston, the crazy Proposition M caps on square footage in San Francisco, or the freakishly bizarre height limit jigsaw pattern imposed in Seattle...
How many views in New York would even need protecting? I'm not being snarky and suggesting there's nothing in the city worth looking at - obviously there is - I'm saying that the grid layout of its streets is itself a de facto view corridor, without the need for city ordinances.

Plus, in some senses, the character of New York is in the sprawl anyway. The lack of a defining focal point is the distinguishing feature of the city. A random skyline of tall buildings is practically synonymous with NYC at this point, whereas every other big city on Earth has to have a defining landmark (St Pauls, Eiffel, etc).

I mean, you could say Empire State, maybe the bridges. But even then, if you took any random portion of the New York skyline, with no discernible landmarks, and asked someone to name it, they'd probably guess New York anyway. It's the prototypical highrise city.

So why would you need view corridors in that instance? Or weird zoning, or height limits? The current model of condensed growth fits the city to a tee.

I'm all for taller buildings, and the city's current zoning scheme needs a massive upgrade, but you'd have to be super greedy to feel the current growth of the city was unfairly restricted.
__________________
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2014, 12:12 AM   #5110
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostface79 View Post
I think most people would agree would that. The outer boroughs and some parts of manhattan would benefit from an increase in FAR even more so now considering the shortage of affordable housing. I would argue that midtown and downtown could also benefit from it to allow for future growth.

That however doesn't mean however that the FAR system should be discarded. It has had a positive impact in the city's overall street scape and that did not discourage development much so far, just look at all the activity going on in the city. In fact buildings have constantly been getting taller, and who knows without FAR we might not be seeing the thin and tall tower phenomenon on 57th street that I and many others are huge fans of.

Bottom line is it needs some alteration for the future but not much more in my opinion.
The problem, however, is that the city isn't good at extracting the necessary concessions from developers to achieve those ends.
I do support aggressive upzoning in Brooklyn and Queens along subway lines/large avenues, but the recent developments in DoBro are really going to taint that for a while.

Just like in places like SF, people equate upzoning, large developments with gentrification on the whole. The relationship, while not a causal one, is definitely correlated...

No one really knows how to make [actually] affordable housing "work," yet.
Upzoning alone won't help, much.
__________________
MCRP '16
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2014, 03:47 AM   #5111
LondoniumLex
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Greenwich
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 2064

Smith Gill's initial proposal is a little like this concept for lower Manhattan, but for the sloped roof .

image hosted on flickr
__________________
LondoniumLex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2014, 11:21 PM   #5112
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Gary Barnett versus everybody

The Extell chief has become something of a poster boy for controversial industry issues, but he’s digging in — and coming out ahead




Quote:
Some developers faced with public outrage over creating a so-called “poor door” would, well, duck out the back door. Not Gary Barnett.

As controversy over the poor door — a separate entrance for lower-income tenants in luxury buildings — at his planned 33-story building at 40 Riverside Boulevard erupted over the summer, the founder and CEO of Extell Development dug in, defending the practice and arguing that without it, developers would opt out of incorporating affordable housing into their projects.

“I don’t think it’s worth making such a big issue over,” Barnett told The Real Deal during an interview in his Midtown East office last month. “Let’s get the affordable housing and let’s not worry about these optics.”

Barnett’s appetite for risk is fabled in real estate circles. But lately, he’s become the poster boy for controversial industry issues, ranging from the poor-door debate, to a probe by a state ethics commission over 421-a tax breaks he received for his super-luxury tower One57, to his alleged cozy relationship with GovernorAndrew Cuomo.

And against the backdrop of the city’s new political climate ushered in by Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is trying to tackle the gaping income gap between the rich and poor, Barnett is unapologetically developing some of the most opulent residential towers in the city.

Extell is “a sort of emblem of what the divided New York is, and what the average voter was worried about in the 2013 election,” said CUNY political science professor John Mollenkopf.

Barnett is, of course, building two mega skyscrapers on “Billionaires’ Row” on West 57th Street — the Christian de Portzamparc-designed One57 and the Nordstrom Tower at 225 West 57th Street, which is slated to be the tallest residential tower in the city. He’s also putting up a 68-story residential tower on the Lower East Side, and is angling to acquire a site that would let him develop a large condo on West 66th Street.

Yet Barnett isn’t just ruffling feathers of the average voter. He’s also tangled with industry rivals along the way.


Quote:
A few years ago, he feuded with fellow developer Bruce Ratner after making last-minute — and ultimately unsuccessful — bids for the New York Times headquarters and the Atlantic Yards site. He also enraged Donald Trump when, unbeknownst to the Donald, he bought a majority stake in the giant development site the mogul partially owned known as Riverside South. More recently, he completed tense deals with archrivals Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Companies, and pulled off an audacious transaction to wrest control of the Ring brothers’ office building portfolio, which many others tried, and failed, to do.

But it’s the most recent controversies that have, to some, made Barnett the embodiment of everything that’s unsavory about New York’s development industry.

“When I think of Gary Barnett, I think of what’s wrong with New York City real estate,” said Jaron Benjamin, executive director of the Metropolitan Council of Housing, the city’s oldest tenant union. “It seems like everything he does, I have to look into what’s legally and ethically wrong with it.”

Real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, who is fighting Barnett in court on behalf of some clients, said that the developer is bound to attract criticism given the high visibility of his projects.

“When you build the biggest buildings, you’re going to be glued to controversy,” Bailey said, “and that’s what’s happening.”


Quote:
Put a ring on it

Though it didn’t generate citywide headlines like the poor-door issue or the 421-a probe, Barnett’s recent dust-up with the Ring brothers showed industry insiders just how cunning he can be.

The deal, which was finalized in October 2013, involved the complicated takeover of a coveted 14-property, 1-million-square-foot package of office buildings owned by Frank and Michael Ring in Manhattan’s white-hot Midtown South.

It essentially became an end-run around Frank Ring, who was trying to hang on to his family portfolio for dear life, despite the fact that he and his brother, who each held a 50 percent stake, had left it largely run down and vacant for years.

In a nutshell, here’s how it unfolded: In 2011, Princeton Holdings’ Joseph Tabak and his partners entered into an agreement with Michael Ring to buy a controlling interest in his stake for a reported $112.5 million. But soon after, Michael got cold feet and tried to back out, leading to a court battle with Tabak.

“It was a transaction that he [Michael] regretted pretty shortly after going into it,” Barnett said. “He’s nervous about it, so he comes to us. He knows that we are honorable businessmen.”

Barnett then swooped in, paying Tabak and his partners $74 million in June 2013 to get them to walk away from the deal. He then paid Michael Ring an undisclosed sum to buy most of his stake.

But that was just Barnett’s opening gambit.

“We instantly filed for partition for all of the other Ring properties,” he said. “I think at this point Frank, who’s a very smart guy, realizes that the jig is up.”

The court battle culminated with Barnett buying Frank’s 50 percent portfolio stake for $308 million.

“To give him [Frank] credit, we paid through the nose,” Barnett said, “but at the end of the day, we end up with a whole portfolio under our control.”

The very next month, Barnett and his team began working out a deal to sell ground leases for four of the 14 buildings to Manhattan-based landlord the Kaufman Organization. That deal, valued at upwards of $175 million, closed in April.

“Gary had the wherewithal to move exceptionally fast,” said broker David Ash of Prince Realty Advisors, who represented Kaufman in the deal.

Alan Miller, a principal at commercial brokerage 5Points Group who closely followed the deal, said that the Ring portfolio deal was Extell being “their crafty and expert selves, taking down a fabled New York City portfolio over the many different suitors that were gunning for it.”

“Extell outmaneuvered everyone to get those buildings, and now is taking advantage of a rising market by flipping the buildings they don’t plan on developing themselves,” Miller added.

The piece de resistance, however, came in July, when Barnett and co-owner Jared Kushner sold Frank Ring a 235,000-square-foot building at 80 West End Avenue for $195 million. That’s a stunning $110 million mark-up over the $84 million the partners bought it for less than a year earlier.

“It’s just obvious that Frank Ring overpaid,” said a broker active in the area. “Jared and Gary are probably pretty happy.”

“It’s a nice trade,” Barnett said with a grin, but added that he and Kushner created value by bringing a long-term tenant, United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, to lease most of the building.


Quote:
Real estate chess

In other instances, Barnett has fought a war of attrition.

In 2011, Extell had six years left on a garage lease beneath Vornado’s planned $400 million residential condo project at 220 Central Park South, and rebuffed the REIT’s buyout offers.

It took two years before Barnett agreed to give up his lease, at which time he also sold Vornado his development lot at neighboring 225 West 58th Street, along with additional air rights, for a total of $194 million, according to a release from Vornado. That price tag translates into about $1,400 a buildable square foot — a huge premium over development rights around the city.

A source said that Vornado “had to take care of him [Barnett]” to make the 220 Central Park South project feasible.

But Barnett said the trade was mutually beneficial and that Vornado did not pay an inflated price.

“You think it’s high, but it’s not high at all,” he said. “They turned around and refinanced at $1,500 a foot. I’m not sure Vornado has a dollar left in that project!”

Vornado declined to comment on the Extell deal. But a source familiar with the Steve Roth-led REIT said that “it was a big game of real estate chess, in which both sides had something that the other wanted — and a lot of value was at stake.”


Quote:
Barnett has also sparred with Stephen Ross’ Related.

In 2012, Extell announced plans to build an office tower dubbed One Hudson Yards at a site on 34th Street and 11th Avenue that he owned since 1998. The proposal did not sit well with Related, which is developing the giant Hudson Yards complex adjacent to that site. Barnett was also planning on asking rents that would have undercut Related’s asking rates.

“We were in the position of being the low-cost provider,” he told TRD, noting that Extell had purchased the land at a low cost, and that the infrastructure was in place. “We would have been quickest to market.”

In September 2013, Extell and Related buried the hatchet and agreed to a property swap — Barnett traded the One Hudson Yards site for a development site farther away, at Eighth Avenue and West 45th Street, that Related co-owned with Boston Properties. To sweeten the deal, Related also paid Barnett $168 million in cash.

Now, Related is planning a 1.1-million-square-foot, 51-story office tower known as 55 Hudson Yards at the site. Representatives for the firm declined to comment.
There is much much more in link:
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articl...nst-everybody/
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)

McSky liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 12:52 AM   #5113
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

Quote:
Originally Posted by LondoniumLex View Post
Smith Gill's initial proposal is a little like this concept for lower Manhattan, but for the sloped roof .

image
reminds me of the old Petrochemical Exchange Center
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 03:10 AM   #5114
Shaddorry
Futurologist
 
Shaddorry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hofstade-Aalst
Posts: 1,527
Likes (Received): 699

Quote:
Originally Posted by LondoniumLex View Post
Smith Gill's initial proposal is a little like this concept for lower Manhattan, but for the sloped roof .

image hosted on flickr
It's perfect! wooow
Shaddorry no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 03:18 AM   #5115
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028

Yes. I would love to have something built like that, especially because it makes efficient use of space. What is the name?









And did anyone notice, in the render posted by LondoniumLex, the World Financial Center is in New York and New Jersey now?
__________________

ExCaliBourBG, VEGAN, jackedi07 liked this post

Last edited by onewtclover; October 2nd, 2014 at 03:30 AM.
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 04:02 AM   #5116
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,514
Likes (Received): 22508

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post
And did anyone notice, in the render posted by LondoniumLex, the World Financial Center is in New York and New Jersey now?
in fact, there is a second Manhattan in the Hudson River...
__________________

onewtclover, sweet-d liked this post
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 08:15 AM   #5117
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

I like that design, the building is a lot too wide for my taste. But it's great none the less.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 10:36 AM   #5118
citybooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 943
Likes (Received): 509

Something futuristic and bold... compelling, twisting, elegant design that has all over the vision for the Chicago Spire for futuristic twistiness and style...this is a vision of course but it might be one worth realizing in some form somewhere in the hot development zones of Manhattan.
__________________

onewtclover, Shaddorry liked this post
citybooster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 05:22 PM   #5119
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,097
Likes (Received): 1629

I think it looks cool. But just like Shanghai Tower, it's designed more to look cool from the outside than to provide a good view for the people inside. So much structure to block the views.
__________________

Shaddorry liked this post
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2014, 06:45 PM   #5120
iamtheSTIG
Registered User
 
iamtheSTIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham - The city of Robin Hood
Posts: 4,228
Likes (Received): 4484

Not overly fond of that building for lower manhatten, I love the base how it swirls up, but to me it feels as though they got half way up the tower and decided to stop

It could've carried on the design to create such a nice crown! It looks a bit stuby there, but it is a great concept no doubt!
Perhaps they could've carried on the twin tower approach at the base and extend them outwards towards the top sort of thing
__________________
Aspiring property developer with major ambitions

Check out my Instagram

Nottingham Interactive Development Map

Shaddorry, onewtclover liked this post
iamtheSTIG no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
217 west 57th street, 225 west 57th street, central park south, cps, extell, new york, nordstrom tower, nyc, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu